PSY-300: Research Methods in Psychology
Department of Psychology
Explain what it means to reason empirically.
Appreciate how psychological research methods help you become a better producer of information as well as a better consumer of information.
Describe five habits that define the work of scientists.
Establish the differences between research producers and consumers, but also their equal importance
Understand the general process of empirical research and science, and how science has “self-correcting” mechanisms
Be able to discriminate between peer-reviewed, published research, and scientific journalism
The methods of psychological research may be different from those found in chemistry, physics, or biology - but we still follow the same principles
To be scientific, we must first be empirical, that is, to rely upon systemic and controlled observations of a phenomenon. We cannot be purely intuitive, which is to make decision off of “gut feeling”.
Pair and Share: What is something you “know” intuitively? You don’t have scientific evidence, but you “know” it somehow
Our scientific procedures may be compromised by confounding variables, poor ethical conduct, or limitations in design - we will discuss all of these through the semester
There are many valid ways of conducting empirical/scientific research, many of which we will explore in this course
It is vital that you are able to both understand the methods of other researchers (consumer), and craft your own (producer)
Examples
Scientists (and psychologists) are empiricists that assess phenomena through rigorous and systemic thinking, testing, and writing
We may use evidence from our senses, or from measurement tools to establish the properties and behaviors of a certain idea
How do we test a component of primate attachment theory? We must perform an empirical experiment!
This also shows an important feature of good research - we must be willing to be wrong!
These are general statements or concepts about how a certain phenomena is believed to behave. They are often multifaceted and expand over time as further information adds to and subtracts from understanding of a certain construct
These theories, oftentimes, try to describe some interaction of two or more constructs, whether that be a monkey and a figurine; or a person and a treatment
Most theories try to follow the rule of parsimony, that is, trying to fit the simplest-possible explanation for a phenomenon or observed behavior.
These are much more specific statements that often serve as the foundation for any particular study. They should be pre-registered - and stated prior to the actual commencement of the planned study. Making hypotheses after a study, to fit the data, is unethical (we will later touch on this issue)
These may be made within the context of a broader theory, but are likely to focus more concretely on a predicted outcome (that could be wrong!)
Several studies, led by several hypotheses, may all contribute to the development of a grander theory
Data is the output of an experiment or study, and contains the observations that either support of refute the hypothesis, which aids in understanding the theory
Try to really internalize this graphic, as it really is the framework by which all research is created
Example: “Learning styles” matching
A singular study does not definitively prove a certain hypothesis or theory, nor can it fully disprove these. Rather, it may add to evidence for or against a certain idea.
Example in writing: “This paper aids in understanding how CBT-I may be beneficial for individuals with depression. Results indicate a moderate effect of the treatment in reducing depression in the present study. Future research is needed to clarify the effect in different populations and contexts.”
Put statistically: we never prove or disprove our null hypothesis (\(H_0\)), we just supply evidence for or against our alternative hypothesis (\(H_1\))
Only once many studies have provided support for a theory, can we say the weight of evidence is in favor of it.
Falsifiability: Good research must allow for our theory and/or hypothesis to be flawed or erroneous. If this is not accounted for, we engage in confirmation bias, or effectively choosing to only investigate for our views.
It is critical that our design, statistics, and reporting make clear the possibility that a study is limited in it’s scope and abilities
No one study is so perfectly designed that it can account for all edge cases in a phenomena
Understand the table and terms on pg 16. of your textbook! These are some “rules to live by” for conducting good scientific work
This is only the tip of the iceberg - we will be covering the great many topics that discuss the “how to” of research methods
Scientists communicate primarily through publishing findings in academic journals that use a system of editors and peer reviewers to ensure the rigor and validity of a study
If a paper is published, it may be cited by future scientists in support of certain claims and arguments in papers, presentations, and reports. Or, others can also disagree and provide competing evidence in their own work.
Journals may range in quality and rigor though - not all are equal! We will discuss some nuances in this later in the semester.
Also, some journals may be difficult to access - we will have a lit review workshop where we cover how to find the full PDF articles of research studies
Specialized journalists often try to bring scientific findings (published in journals) to a medium that is more acceptable to laypeople.
However, these writings are not peer-reviewed the same as the original research - and may overstate, understate, or be reductive towards the “true” findings
When in doubt -> always go to the original publication!!
Chapter 1 - Scientific Thinking || PSY-300: Research Methods in Psychology